So I guess Hillary Clinton personally attacking Trump about women, with his wife sitting next to him, WAS in the spirit of the event and the right
place and time? Personally attacking someone in the crowd, as she did with Rudy Gulliani... that was the time and place, right? How about discussing
whether Trump was rich or not? Good place to do it?

It's a roast. Of course pot shots will be made. But a roast is also supposed to be humorous and entertaining. Hillary took her shots with humor. Trump
delivered lies and conspiracies with very little to no humor at all.

The usual suspects on ATS - Trump bad. Got booed. Media said so. It must be true and the whole story.

The media didn't tell me Trump got boo'd. I watched it happen.

Trump got more laughs...

He should have stuck with the humor.

Oh and if you watched it that just means you decided to be dishonest and one sided. Fair enough.

It's dishonest because I don't believe or think like you in my review of the event?

What's dishonest is that you would come in to this thread, wag your finger at others and try to shame them for not having the same thoughts on the
roast.

Nope.
I have posted the videos, watched them and called out both sides and both sets of reactions. That is called honesty.
Those who decide to mislead others with lies and omissions can own their deception. It fits well with Hillary's campaign.

plz go find a dictionary, and read the definition of honesty, not sure you understand what it means.

I'll take that as a big compliment coming from a Hillary fan, sunshine.
I can assure you I am the complete opposite to you when it comes to integrity and honesty.

Really me a hillary fan lol, i am a socialist, and hillary is nothing close to what we in canada understand has liberals, but keep up the great work,
youve got 18 days left before you change your tune.

I won't be changing my tune. That particular song is not dependent on the election result.
For information, my tune on the outcome of the election has been consistent for a long time.

My condolences on your political outlook.

So is trump winning or losing?

Seriously?
The election was done some time ago - that does not motivate my response to nonsense, dishonest, threads like this one. The only way to fix the
disgusting political sewer and those that perpetuate it is to call out the dishonesty. To that end I give Trump great credit, even if he is only
throwing light on it as opposed to changing it.

Oh so your just making excuses, i get it, sorry your team lost, better luck next time.

Speaking of eulogies, the Cardinal that was sitting next to Hillary all night in a shallow attempt to relate to Catholics released a statement
regarding the remarks Trump made about Clinton insulting Catholics in the leaked emails.

originally posted by: carewemust
Another Trump Euology...ha. he always resurrects to be even stronger than before.

To his base supporters, yes.

Glad you think he is becoming stronger the more he coats himself in fecal matter..

In a country that's sick of the malaise delivered by our current President, whose Democrat replacement is promising to do far greater damage, "fecal
matter" would be a welcome improvement!

To their dismay, pollsters and the media got it wrong, Republican primary after Republican primary. Every time they attempted to shoot and bury
Donald, he won by an even larger margin the next week. It's too bad their memories and IQ aren't much better than my kid's hamsters.

Donald Trump dominated that speech and everyone else in that room. It was a pleasure to watch. What an amazing man

a) I don't watch videos. I don't have time. I do read transcripts, however, and news articles.
b) not everyone on ATS has the time or bandwidth or devices to watch videos. Many browse during lunch or quick moments when they can. A video
blaring out sound can be risky if they're at work.
c) How is it dominating when you alienate your audience (who might have contributed to your campaign) and they start booing you?

Just read this after I posted above.

I can't believe you didn't even watch it and then wrote this thread!
This is a good case study of what is happening and how people can be used by those wishing to spread propaganda, so I thank you for that at
least.

What I posted was an article (which I did read.)

I did not go back and fact-check the article. I'd seen several places that Trump's speech was poorly received and picked an article for discussion
that I thought was pretty representative (without being nasty towards Trump)

originally posted by: carewemust
Another Trump Euology...ha. he always resurrects to be even stronger than before.

To his base supporters, yes.

Glad you think he is becoming stronger the more he coats himself in fecal matter..

In a country that's sick of the malaise delivered by our current President, whose Democrat replacement is promising to do far greater damage, "fecal
matter" would be a welcome improvement!

By every poll done, Obama still has a greater than 50% approval rating.
Donald (pre dinner) had a 35% rating.
the only people sick of the current president are the ones that were sick that he won in 08 and 12.

To their dismay, pollsters and the media got it wrong, Republican primary after Republican primary.

Can the presidency be won by republican core voters exclusively?
no..it cant. yes, the more he appeals to the hard right angst ridden voter, the less he appeals to...everything else.
the down ticket is gonna suffer for the Donald. looking forward to 4 years of ATS being the republican butthurt headquarters...but you lot brought it
on yourself, and come the day after the election, the right wing tears will flood the trailer parks.

oh, and I dislike Hillary. she lost my vote...but tbh, last night has made me reconsider the notion of the disenfranchised not voting for the
federal...Donald is not just a bad candidate, he is now seemingly wanting to envoke passionate dislike enough to get lazy voters to go actually vote
just to punch him with a vote against him.

Donald Trump dominated that speech and everyone else in that room. It was a pleasure to watch. What an amazing man

a) I don't watch videos. I don't have time. I do read transcripts, however, and news articles.
b) not everyone on ATS has the time or bandwidth or devices to watch videos. Many browse during lunch or quick moments when they can. A video
blaring out sound can be risky if they're at work.
c) How is it dominating when you alienate your audience (who might have contributed to your campaign) and they start booing you?

Just read this after I posted above.

I can't believe you didn't even watch it and then wrote this thread!
This is a good case study of what is happening and how people can be used by those wishing to spread propaganda, so I thank you for that at
least.

What I posted was an article (which I did read.)

I did not go back and fact-check the article. I'd seen several places that Trump's speech was poorly received and picked an article for discussion
that I thought was pretty representative (without being nasty towards Trump)

These are not my responses.

This is not about the video.

This is about the article.

I know, you just passed on some biased reporting and didn't bother to go the source material. That's a common problem these days and why the MSM
still wield influence. Whilst very few actually trust them, their stories get regurgitated, sometimes through avenues like ATS where people might
just believe it.

Donald Trump dominated that speech and everyone else in that room. It was a pleasure to watch. What an amazing man

They're both Crooked, unethical Jerks. He's not that amazing. He was just born lucky to have be given great connections and millions of dollars from
his family. He's got a big ego. But amazing? That's me, not Trump! (or Clinton-just to be clear..she's not amazing either!)

While I have to fight it with every fiber of my being, I can choose to either see this dinner through a cynical lens, or an at least very faintly
hopeful one. Therefore I choose the latter. Because it is that cynicism and polarization that I now fear will eat this country alive more than either
candidate or party.

Therefore, I choose to look at the one tiny, shimmering silver lining here: at least a lot of people who would otherwise be diametrically opposed to
one another came together to do something ostensibly for good. I even saw Trump laughing at some of Clinton's jokes... even those at his
expense.

So, sure. I could say, "Well it's all just for show and political advantage anyway - we all know they despise each other." Or, "These fundraisers only
exist to make the wealthy and politically motivated feel better about themselves or look better than they are to the public." Or, "Only a certain
percentage of the money raised at these and filtered through catholic charities actually help real people."

Or, I could choose to remember how catholic charities were the ones who fed me, gave us beds, and gave us clothes when we were a millimeter from
living on the street as I was growing up, and that while far from perfect, some real good does get done out of all these machinations. And that at
least for one night, two candidates who loath one another chuckled at each other's somewhat off color jokes about a remarkably unusual campaign
season.

I've had a bit of a terrifying epiphany during this election. And it is that, regardless of which side you find yourself on or who you're voting for
(I'm voting for neither,) this discussion by former SCOTUS justice Souter has become a disturbingly apropos cautionary speech these days:

... except that I would add to what he said the following. It is not merely civic ignorance, but civic cynicism, and civic incivility, that are
leading us down this path as well. The three feed into to one another. Now don't get me wrong.

Yes things are bad. Very bad. Yes corruption is rife. Yes our politicians give us myriad reasons not to trust them or support them. Yes we are all
aware of the increasingly transparent, thanks to many recent leaks, degree to which that corruption exists. And it's not just in government. It's in
business, it's in religious institutions, it's even in academia sometimes.

But I can either recoil from that, become filled with bitterness, resentment, and rage, and wash my hands of the whole thing... which imho guarantees
that it will only get worse, because the people who care and want to change it are simply withdrawing in disgust and not changing it... or I can
change myself on an individual basis and vow to treat others with civility and genuine concern and compassion no matter how severely we
disagree... and then hope that from that, if others do the same, eventually, in time, society begins to produce candidates and leaders in all walks of
life - eventually, even if it takes a generation to turn things around - that aren't rife with the things we all see and lament today.

The alternative, if we continue this death spiral of incivility, rage, and lack of compromise, is... well... justice Souter pretty well defines what
the alternative is in my opinion. And it's not pretty.

Therefore, I am choosing to fly my irrationally hopeful idealistic flag high, and "be the change I want to see in the world." And politely encourage
others to do the same. Because I literally am at my wit's end in terms of what else to do to affect change. It's all I have it in my tiny power to do.
So that's all can do. And it's what I will do.

So yes. I don't trust either of them, or any of them. Yes, there is cause for enormous cynicism. It's absolutely justified. But... in all of that...
there were moments of faint hope. And I choose to look at and at least acknowledge those.

I saw it.
I agree with the article. Trump told a couple of good jokes then got pathetic.

The article is a biased and foisted upon unwitting people, seemingly all too eager to foist it upon others.
No one is arguing that Trump did not get toxic, rude.. whatever you want to call it. But to take his nasty comments as the full spectrum of the event
is BS.

We can all take a slice of one story and use it dishonestly. That's easy. Having some integrity is a harder path to follow.

Let me give you an example. "Trump crushes Hillary in 3rd debate as Hillary can't answer questions on foreign donations."
First part opinion, second part true, overall BS as it ignores everything else that happened.

The media has become a series of opinions scattered with partial descriptions of what actually happened in order to drive narratives. I reject that
kind of reporting and I reject anyone who tries to spin it as honest reporting of events, even if I have to stand alone in doing so.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.